Hmm, So Ford Was Working on the Same Drive System as Tucker

[Tuckerfan1053]

Lawson's design, however, has more in common with the TASCO prototype than it does with the Tucker 48 design.

And here is roughly 75% of what I know about Tucker and his car. If you've got blueprints and design specs of the car which aren't commonly available, I'm certainly interested, if not, then I don't know.

[Guest]

Brian,

Am I wasting my time here? I'm offering you the opportunity to learn about the factual documentation I have, and you're not even willing to find out what I have.

But in case someone out there is interested, here are some George S. Lawson facts. Lawson was one of the most respected auto designers in Detroit. He was hired by Preston Tucker in mid-1944 to create a fastback rear-engine sedan. That was Tucker's only request. Lawson created a design based on a Buick design theme he had been working on since at least 1937, which included cycle fenders (headlights turned with fenders), a cyclops headlight, and a central driving position with the "steering wheel console" idea. These were all George Lawson's ideas initially, not Preston Tuckers.

Lawson agreed to work on the project for 5% of the Corporation stocks, which would be issued later. As he was not being paid, Lawson designed the car in between his paying jobs. Tucker knew this, and what is written in Charles T. Pearson's Indomitable Tin Goose book about Lawson (although not named) being merely commissioned is a complete and intentional lie. This is not opinion, but fact.

Lawson was named the Cheif Stylist of the Tucker Corporation as early as Feb. 1946. He was again named the Chief Stylist when the Corporation was formed a few months later. It doesn't sound like Lawson was merely commissioned to me. Just more proof that Charles T. Pearson was lying in his book.

Lawson stayed with the project until Dec. 31, 1946 when he resigned. Yes, Lawson worked with Preston Tucker on the Torpedo for over a two-and-a-half year period.

The design that Lawson created set the pace for the design of the Tucker. If Tremulis had been hired first, the car would have turned out dramatically different. For example, there would not have been a cyclops headlight. Also, the car would not have had that tapered "boat" feel about it. These were Lawson.

In Tremulis trial testimony, he clearly states that his design was based on the work of George Lawson. This makes sense, as the Corporation couldnt' stray too much from a design they had been publishing around the globe, could they? Tremulis also testified that when he arrived the engineering department was working on converting the Lawson design from a 2-door into a four door. Apparently, after 2.5 years of promoting a 2 door design, Preston Tucker decided that to build a 4 door automobile. Why did Tucker have Lawson design a 2 door over a 2.5 year period - even having Lawson sculpt a 2 door scale clay model - but then changed his mind? I can only assume that after 2.5 years Tucker decided a 4 door would sell better. Lawson has often been discredited merely on the fact that his was a 2 door design. But this was obviously not Lawsons fault, but Tucker's.

Please note, Tremulis' testimony also refutes what Charles T. Pearson wrote about Lawson. Pearson says the Corporation only used Lawson's design in publicity because they were forced to, due to Lawson being untimely. Yet we have testimonial proof that the Tucker Corporation was building Lawson's car. And we also know that Lawson was the chief stylist of the Tucker Corporation for many months and worked for Preston Tucker over a 2.5 year period. If Lawson was untimely, why did Tucker keep him around so long and also name him the Tucker Chief Stylist (several times over a several month period)?

In regards to your comment that the Lawson design is more like the TASCO, this is somewhat true. First, the TASCO came after the Lawson Torpedo, not the other way around. Buehrig claimed that the inspiration was from somewhere other than the Tucker, but the TASCO is such a close copy of the Lawson design, I have my doubts about the origins Buehrig reported.

It is true when a person compares the Lawson Torpedo to the final "production" Tucker '48, the lineage may not be immediately apparent. But remember, there were several people that worked on the design after Lawson, which means the design evolved over time. But the design work that Tremulis and the Lippincott team did evolved directly from the Lawson design. Tremulis did not start from scratch. Lippincott neither.

First, look at the March 2, 1947 advertisement which is photo #4 (and also #8) in Phil Egan's Design and Destiny book. On page 29, Egan states, "The [Tremulis] car pictured in the March advertisement represented typical design evolution." In other words, Tremuils' design was a direct decendent of the George Lawson Torpedo. And the fact that designs evolve over time is quite common.

In Egan's book, you will also see Tremulis' clay model (photo #17 on the left), which was his final design proposal for the Tucker '48 exterior. Notice that his model is nearly identical to his design featured in the March 2nd advertisement (photo #8). Thus, Tremulis' proposal for the Tucker evolved directly from the work of George Lawson - again, not from scratch.

As Tremulis' clay model featured in photo #17 was his final proposal for the exterior of the Tucker, it also means his design was never built. It does not resemble either the "Tin Goose" or the "produciton" Tuckers. Technically, Tremulis' design proposal was no more produced than was George Lawson's!

Yes, the final design for the car was actually the Lippincott teams. As you can see in that same photo #17, the "Tin Goose" and the "production" Tuckers look nearly identical to the Lippincott clay.

"But wait!", you'll say, "part of the Lippincott team's design is based on Tremulis' work." Yes, this is correct. But a large percentage of Tremulis' design is based on George Lawson's work - by Tremulis' own admission.

So, after studying all of these facts, who should get credit for the design of the Tucker? The person who did the original design work and who inspired all of the designers that followed him? Or the persons whose design submittal looks nearly identical to the actual production unit?

I'll let you decide.

[Tuckerfan1053]

And what does the "factual documentation" consist of?

And I never claimed that the TASCO design influenced Lawsons or even vice versa, only that the two resembled one another closely.

Also trying to state what the car would have looked like without Lawson's input is impossible, since we have no idea of what any of the others involved with would have come up with on their own. Certainly, many of the people involved with Tucker's work on the Carioca felt that the fender mounted headlights wouldn't have worked for vibration reasons, so it's entirely possible that Tucker would have had to abandoned the concept if he'd been able to put the car into production. Center mounted headlights that turned with the wheels were also an aftermarket item for Packards (at the same time Tucker was working for Packard), so the center mounting isn't unique. And it seems highly likely to me, that's where Tucker got the idea of moving headlights.

And frankly, I'm not all that interested in Lawson's design, since it ultimately didn't become the Tucker (and thank heavens, it's not a pretty car at all), I am most interested in the technical aspects of the car which was built, and the plans for the Talisman and Carioca, as well as information from reliable sources which will either prove or disprove the belief that the Big Three (or Kaiser) played a role in getting Tucker shut down. If you read my posts on the company that I linked to earlier, you'll know that the answer to that won't be found in Tucker Corporation documents.

[Guest]

If you re-read what I wrote about the TASCO and the Tucker, I did not accuse you of saying the TASCO influenced the Lawson Torpedo. But you made a comparison, which needed to clarified for those who might have read your post and make such an assumption.

As far as the headlights that turned with the wheels on the Packards, technically, these are called "turning lights". They were available on any car in the 1930's that wanted them. But this has nothing to do with the cycle fenders proposed by Lawson which by design meant that the outer headlights became turning light.

I completely agree when you say that "trying to state what the car would have looked like without Lawson's input is impossible, since we have no idea of what any of the others involved with would have come up with on their own." That was exactly my point. If Tremulis had been the first Chief Stylist of the Tucker Corporation, who knows what the car would have looked like. But it is highly unlikely that he would have started out with something that looked like George Lawson's design - which the "production" Tucker evolved directly from. Tremulis testified that Lawson was "an advocate of cycle fender design". Lawson was also an advocate of cyclops headlights and central driving positions. These things are established facts, confirmed by the existance of Lawson's 1937 Buick design artwork and other vintage design renderings. (And please note that when I say Lawson was an advocate, I am not saying Lawson invented these things - just that he was a promoter of these things throughout the 1930s and 1940s.)

So, where is the documentation that Tucker or Tremulis designed cars with cycle fenders or cyclops headlights during the 1930s and 1940s? I have never seen any Tremulis renderings prior to the Tucker that feature three headlights. Same goes for Preston Tucker. In fact, where's any actual evidence that Tucker ever designed a car himself? Was he an artist? Do his original design renderings or paintings exist? If he was a designer, then why would he need Lawson, Tremulis, and the Lippincott team?

And now your saying the Lawson car was an unattractive design? There are many people that would disagree with you, including Preston Tucker. He loved it enough to publish it in magazines and newspapers all over the world!!! He told everyone that Lawson's amazingly sleek design was the one that he was proud to put his name on! That converted Riviera that you say is an accurate representation of Lawson's car is obviously not.

No, Lawson's design did not eventually become the "production" Tucker. And as stated earlier, neither was Tremulis'. So, now I have an answer to the question I asked you. I'm glad to learn your opinion that as the actual designers of the "production" model Tucker, the Lippincott team deserves full credit for the design of the car.

In regards to "factual documentation", I have asked you a number of times to give me a call so that I could gladly share it with you. But you continue to assault me rather than finding out what I have to offer. I cannot continue to answer your posts based on documentation I have collected over the years, only to receive responses based on your feelings. I think it is about time you realized that there might be someone out there that knows more than you do. If you're really interested in knowing the technical aspects of the actual production car, then I suggest you contact Richard E. Jones if you haven't already. He is a true historian who presents facts, not opinions. He has written expert articles relating to the evolution of the Tucker's engineering based on Tucker Corporation documents, not the recollections of 80 year old men that might have seen something as they walked passed the engineering department.

[Tatra Man]

The previous post was by me. The web site didn't automatically log me in again as it was supposed to. Hampton

[Tuckerfan1053]

Last time I checked, there was no requirement for anyone to have an opinion on Lawson's design, if some folks like the design, that's there choice, I happen to disagree with it.

As for Lawson being the sole source for the idea of the cyclops/fender mounted light, that's impossible to answer, since the folks with first hand knowledge of that have long since passed. We do know, however, that Tucker could have independantly seen the idea and possibly suggested it to Lawson. Certainly, we know that Tucker was highly influenced in many of his ideas on automotive design from working with Harry A. Miller who, if you'll recall, made safety a centerpiece of the Golden Submarine race car (and which Tucker may have worked on) and the center seating position for the driver is standard in the kind of race cars with which Tucker and Miller worked with, so Tucker could have picked Lawson because he'd seen Lawson's work and knew that Lawson was already thinking along the same lines.

I have never assaulted you in any way, I just have chosen to disagree with you on certain matters. Nor have you offered me any reason to call you other than vague offers of having "factual documents." What these documents detail, you won't say, but you will chastise me for not providing you with copies of personal correspondance available, even though I do not have the express permission of a gentleman I highly respect to do so. Seems to me, that if you were going to take the high road here, you'd post a detailed listing of what those documents were, or scan and post them on the web (you can do that for free at site such as Photo Bucket and Image Cave). Instead, you suggest that I call you and you will tell me about them. You make no promises that I will ever see copies of the documents so that I might have some hope of verifying their authenticity, nor do you tell me what those documents entail. They could, for example, simply be payroll records, of which I have very little interest in. (I'm ingoring the fact that I have only a prepaid cell phone for a phone and thus every call costs me money since you couldn't possibly know that.)

Nor do I claim to be an expert on anything Tucker, if you'll notice my screen name is Tuckerfan1053 and not Tuckerexpert. In the past I've found the automotive information provided by the club to be very helpful and informative and in some instances more detailed about non-Tucker makes than that which is provided by clubs devoted to those cars. So for me to think of myself to be an "expert" on Tuckers, given all that, would be the height of idiocy.

Finally, Mr. Egan might be an 80 year old man, but he's sharper than most of the people I've met. Nor am I going on simply his "recollections," I am going by the technical discussions he and I had about not only work done by the Tucker Corporation but by other companies in the years since. Egan may not have an engineering degree (And I don't know if he does or not, given the nature of education when he was going to school, it's entirely possible he might have had the same training as an engineer, but not the certification.), but he's certainly studied the engineering aspects of numerous things (including power plants and aircraft to name but a few) in great detail and is as knowledgeable about them as the engineers I know who are currently working in the field.

As you yourself stated, neither one of us knows a thing about the other. I have, however, provided several links to independent sites in this thread and the other thread that I've linked to, which detail where I've gotten a lot of my information from, including sources which can be considered reliable (such as the Federal gov't). You, on the other hand, have simply made various assertions that individuals did this (no link to other work by Lawson showing the center driving position, for example), claimed to have documentation, and promised that "all will be revealed" if I call you, and while I have no reason to believe that you're lying, I have no reason to believe that you're telling the truth, either.

Nor do I see the reason for it being so important as to attach a specific name to who designed what on the car. Certainly, a number of the ideas which appeared on the Tucker 48 were not original, but what makes the car unique, in my opinion, is that so many brilliant ideas, which have only recently, if ever, made it to production cars, appeared on one vehicle. What makes the Tucker unique, not only in automotive history, but in all history, is that it is one of the few times where a group of people got together and said, "Let's build something completely different and make it state of the art." About the only time that has happened in the years since Tucker has been in the space program and Burt Rutan's work on aircraft. It took one man to create the environment in which that happened, and that man's name is on the car. The other folks were important, it's true, but if it weren't for Preston Tucker, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing their work in all probability.

[Tatra Man]

First of all, you volunteered you personal opinion of Lawson’s design. I did not ask for it. But I though you might find it an interesting fact that Preston Tucker loved the design. But it is also true that you are not required to like it.

I also do not know why it is so important to attach a specific name to the design of the Tucker – but the name that has been attached is Alex Tremulis. And when anyone suggests that he didn’t design the car single-handedly, people want to start a boxing match.

As I stated in my previous response, there is sufficient documentation showing that Lawson was designing cycle fender Buicks with cyclops headlights and central driving positions well before he met Preston Tucker. There is no documentation to suggest that Alex Tremulis or Preston Tucker ever designed cycle fender cars, central driving positions, or cyclops headlights prior to the Tucker project. Naturally, until such documentation surfaces, the only conclusion is that George Lawson originated these designs. Is it possible that Tucker also had similar thoughts before meeting Lawson? Perhaps; however there is nothing to support this theory other than the suggestion of possibility.

As far as the central driving position: Yes, many racecars had this, as many racecars had only one seat, or room enough for one seat. As mentioned previously, Tucker obviously liked Lawson’s work or he wouldn’t have kept him around for a 2.5-year period. Nor would he have named him Chief Stylist of the Tucker Corporation. And it was Lawson that resigned from the Tucker Corporation. Tucker did not ask him to leave.

As before, anything is possible. That is why documentation is so important. Without it, you and I can theorize all we want. But physical evidence eliminates the need for theories and forces us to make conclusions based on reality. Some conclusions are obviously more concrete than others. But any conclusion based on supporting documentation is superior to pure guesswork.

If you want to see specific documentation on Lawson’s work, find a copy of Special Interest Autos #44 from April of 1978. It features one of his 1937 Buick renderings with a cyclops headlight, central driver’s position, and an egg crate grill. The similarities to this design and the Tucker Torpedo he designed years later are frightening. This design further supports the thought that Lawson was the originator of the basic design, not Tucker. Lawson’s rendering for the central driving position is also pictured in this magazine. This particular rendering was used in advertisements. I own this original painting. It was created in 1941, but updated for the Tucker project in 1945. What is not shown in this article is Lawson’s 1937 cycle fender Buick proposal. It is a very similar design to the one featured, but with cycle fenders. This particular piece has never been published.

I also own Lawson’s original ¼ scale design model for the Tucker Torpedo – Yes, the one that was published by Tucker giving the general population the impression that he had a running prototype. I don’t think he meant to mislead the public, but that’s what they made of it.

I have only a handful of original Tucker blueprints. I have about 30 hand-drawn engineering drawings made by Lawson in 1945 and early 1946 for the design of a hydraulic fluid drive, featuring torque converters at the wheels. The hydraulic pump/motor itself is a two cylinder free-piston engine. The way it is designed would allow for stacking units. Thus, it could be a two, four, or six-cylinder unit. If you read the January 1946 PIC article, such an arrangement is proposed by Tucker. These drawings would suggest that Lawson was heavily involved in the conceptualization of Tucker’s “flowing power”. And Tucker testified that he did see an engine design by Lawson.

I also have Lawson’s original painting of the steering wheel console (which was published in the first Tucker brochure).

There is so much inaccuracy surrounding the Tucker story, it is mind-boggling. And people keep re-hashing the same old garbage. Thus, the only way to even begin to know what is and is not correct is to (a.) forget everything you’ve ever read or heard about the car and (b). study vintage documentation. That means Tucker Corporation documents, trial testimonies, vintage publications, the SEC investigation report, witness statements, Preston Tucker’s own personal testimony (Evening News lawsuit), newspaper reports, and so on.

I literally have over two thousand pages of this material. And I spend a great deal of time reading this material and making comparisons between it and statements people have made in the following decades. And there are a lot of obviously incorrect claims. Some of these are a result of memory failure, while others are most certainly blatant lies.

As far as Mr. Egan, I’m not actually interested in your personal correspondences with him. However, if he or anyone else claims exclusive knowledge on a particular Tucker subject, I would enjoy the opportunity to learn about it. But my understanding from your last post is that your Egan correspondences are not as much about his exclusive knowledge of events surrounding the Tucker automobile, as much as technical discussions about the Tucker as compared to other technology of the era. That’s great. But this is not what you originally led me to believe. And by the way, there are lots of 80-year-old men out there with Tucker stories besides Phil Egan. I did not indicate Mr. Egan in my previous statement. Nor I have I made any attempt to pass judgement of his intellectual abilities.

If you really want to see the ultimate in “state of the art” production automobiles, check out the 1934 Tatra T77’s and 1936 Tatra T87’s. I’m certain a lot of the Tucker’s design was based on these Tatras. Some of the Tatra features include monocoque construction with a central backbone and wishbone support for the motor/transaxle, rear-engine air-cooled magnesium-aluminum V8 with single cam per bank and hemispherical combustion chambers (Tatra had flat four cylinders as well), true aerodynamic body featuring a completely skirted underbody, 12 volt electricals with a negative ground, all-wheel independents suspension (utilizing swing axles – the VW Beetle used torsion), rack and pinion steering, front seats that recline into a bed, three piece windshield for improved aerodynamics, recessed door handles, skirted rear wheels, three headlights, a dorsal fin to equalize side-wind pressure, increased ease of engine removal for servicing by running all electrical/hydraulic/mechanical lines at one basic juncture, and so much more. They also put hot air over the body of the car in order to increase its aerodynamic qualities and smooth out the vacuums created by wind flowing over the tail of the body. A few 1933 prototypes even had central driver’s position. The Tatras were the most advanced production automobiles in the world, and the first production automobiles to throw out conventional automotive design and build something completely new. Check out www.tatra.demon.nl

[Tuckerfan1053]

First of all, you volunteered you personal opinion of Lawson’s design. I did not ask for it. But I though you might find it an interesting fact that Preston Tucker loved the design. But it is also true that you are not required to like it.

He might have liked it, but he didn't use it.

I also do not know why it is so important to attach a specific name to the design of the Tucker – but the name that has been attached is Alex Tremulis. And when anyone suggests that he didn’t design the car single-handedly, people want to start a boxing match.

You were the one who brought Lawson's name in it and started stating that he was responsible for this or that feature of the car. I didn't credit anyone with any aspect of the car.

As I stated in my previous response, there is sufficient documentation showing that Lawson was designing cycle fender Buicks with cyclops headlights and central driving positions well before he met Preston Tucker. There is no documentation to suggest that Alex Tremulis or Preston Tucker ever designed cycle fender cars, central driving positions, or cyclops headlights prior to the Tucker project. Naturally, until such documentation surfaces, the only conclusion is that George Lawson originated these designs. Is it possible that Tucker also had similar thoughts before meeting Lawson? Perhaps; however there is nothing to support this theory other than the suggestion of possibility.

So do you think that Tucker simply gave Lawson carte blanche on the design of the Torpedo, or that the two of them sat down together and discussed what kinds of features the car was going to have? Do you think that Tucker did this without looking at Lawson's other work? Without detailed notes of any meetings Tucker and Lawson might have had prior to the first sketches, we can't say for certain exactly how features of the car came about. We can assume, based on the evidence that we do have, that some of the features are likely to have been suggested by Lawson or by Tucker, but the only thing we can say for certain is that Tucker would have had final say on what went into the car.

As before, anything is possible. That is why documentation is so important. Without it, you and I can theorize all we want. But physical evidence eliminates the need for theories and forces us to make conclusions based on reality. Some conclusions are obviously more concrete than others. But any conclusion based on supporting documentation is superior to pure guesswork.

Not necessarily. If the documentation is incorrect (as often happens), then any conclusions based on it are at risk of being flawed.

If you want to see specific documentation on Lawson’s work, find a copy of Special Interest Autos #44 from April of 1978. It features one of his 1937 Buick renderings with a cyclops headlight, central driver’s position, and an egg crate grill. The similarities to this design and the Tucker Torpedo he designed years later are frightening. This design further supports the thought that Lawson was the originator of the basic design, not Tucker. Lawson’s rendering for the central driving position is also pictured in this magazine. This particular rendering was used in advertisements. I own this original painting. It was created in 1941, but updated for the Tucker project in 1945. What is not shown in this article is Lawson’s 1937 cycle fender Buick proposal. It is a very similar design to the one featured, but with cycle fenders. This particular piece has never been published.

And William Hamlin claimed that when he was a teenager he drew up a car which looks like a Tucker 48. So the idea was certainly not unique.

I also own Lawson’s original ¼ scale design model for the Tucker Torpedo – Yes, the one that was published by Tucker giving the general population the impression that he had a running prototype. I don’t think he meant to mislead the public, but that’s what they made of it.

By "they" who do you mean?

I have only a handful of original Tucker blueprints. I have about 30 hand-drawn engineering drawings made by Lawson in 1945 and early 1946 for the design of a hydraulic fluid drive, featuring torque converters at the wheels. The hydraulic pump/motor itself is a two cylinder free-piston engine. The way it is designed would allow for stacking units. Thus, it could be a two, four, or six-cylinder unit. If you read the January 1946 PIC article, such an arrangement is proposed by Tucker. These drawings would suggest that Lawson was heavily involved in the conceptualization of Tucker’s “flowing power”. And Tucker testified that he did see an engine design by Lawson.

I don't doubt that Lawson was heavily involved in the project. From what I've been able to gather, it pretty much didn't matter what your job title was, you wound up being involved in all aspects of the process. Not too surprising considering the nature of a start up.

There is so much inaccuracy surrounding the Tucker story, it is mind-boggling. And people keep re-hashing the same old garbage. Thus, the only way to even begin to know what is and is not correct is to (a.) forget everything you’ve ever read or heard about the car and (b). study vintage documentation. That means Tucker Corporation documents, trial testimonies, vintage publications, the SEC investigation report, witness statements, Preston Tucker’s own personal testimony (Evening News lawsuit), newspaper reports, and so on.

Yes, there's a website which claims to have an account by a Tucker employee that's patently false. Also many people still believe the SEC report was accurate, even there's 50 or so cars which contract it. For a rather hysterical botching of the Tucker story, I suggest you dig up a copy of Cars That Never Were by the editors of Consumer Guide. They get a number of their facts wrong, and (apparently) don't realize that the photos they have are of the Tin Goose and one of the later models and not the same car.

I literally have over two thousand pages of this material. And I spend a great deal of time reading this material and making comparisons between it and statements people have made in the following decades. And there are a lot of obviously incorrect claims. Some of these are a result of memory failure, while others are most certainly blatant lies.

What I find puzzling is that there are people today who have a vicious hatred of Tucker, even though they or their family were never affected by the company going under. Speaking of inaccuracies, do you have any explaination for the article in Speed Age which gives the number of 589 engines as being over 100? That's the only account I've seen with the total being that high, and I doubt it's accurate, but it was given by one of the engine's designers.

As far as Mr. Egan, I’m not actually interested in your personal correspondences with him.

Then why did you suggest I share them?

However, if he or anyone else claims exclusive knowledge on a particular Tucker subject, I would enjoy the opportunity to learn about it. But my understanding from your last post is that your Egan correspondences are not as much about his exclusive knowledge of events surrounding the Tucker automobile, as much as technical discussions about the Tucker as compared to other technology of the era. That’s great. But this is not what you originally led me to believe.

I never stated that Egan had exclusive knowledge of the drive system. And our discussion ranged from the Tucker's drive system, to later efforts at similar systems, to flywheel powered cars, to power satellites, and other things.

And by the way, there are lots of 80-year-old men out there with Tucker stories besides Phil Egan. I did not indicate Mr. Egan in my previous statement. Nor I have I made any attempt to pass judgement of his intellectual abilities.

Well, I don't know any other 80 year men who worked for Tucker (as well as other car companies).

If you really want to see the ultimate in “state of the art” production automobiles, check out the 1934 Tatra T77’s and 1936 Tatra T87’s. I’m certain a lot of the Tucker’s design was based on these Tatras. Some of the Tatra features include monocoque construction with a central backbone and wishbone support for the motor/transaxle, rear-engine air-cooled magnesium-aluminum V8 with single cam per bank and hemispherical combustion chambers (Tatra had flat four cylinders as well), true aerodynamic body featuring a completely skirted underbody, 12 volt electricals with a negative ground, all-wheel independents suspension (utilizing swing axles – the VW Beetle used torsion), rack and pinion steering, front seats that recline into a bed, three piece windshield for improved aerodynamics, recessed door handles, skirted rear wheels, three headlights, a dorsal fin to equalize side-wind pressure, increased ease of engine removal for servicing by running all electrical/hydraulic/mechanical lines at one basic juncture, and so much more. They also put hot air over the body of the car in order to increase its aerodynamic qualities and smooth out the vacuums created by wind flowing over the tail of the body. A few 1933 prototypes even had central driver’s position. The Tatras were the most advanced production automobiles in the world, and the first production automobiles to throw out conventional automotive design and build something completely new. Check out www.tatra.demon.nl

Yes, I'm familiar with Mr. Ledwinka's car and its features. I've often wondered if some of the folks who worked for Tucker and might have encountered them during their service in WW II and if some of the things they noticed in the car didn't make their way into the Tucker. Or it simply could be coincidence. I've got a number of photos German built cars which date from before the Beetle, but strongly resemble both it and the Tatra from which the design was cribbed from.

[Tatra Man]

Brian,

You hit on some good points. Yes, Preston Tucker had complete and final say on the Tucker. And as a result, I think he deserves full credit for the car.

On the subject of Lawson: Lawson brought his portfolio to the first meeting with Tucker in the summer of 1944. No doubt, Tucker liked what he saw, and Lawson was also impressed by Tucker. The two obviously struck a chord. I still am convinced that Lawson originated these ideas. In fact, I believe the reason that Lawson was recommended to Tucker was his reputation as a streamliner and for designing fastback, rear-engine designs.

On the Tatra, there were many trade magazines in Europe and America that wrote about them. The T77 prototype with central steering was featured in the Oct. 1934 Motor Magazine issue here in the US. Another article in Motor Magazine (Jan. 1935) used the Tatra 77 to pose a fictitious argument about front and rear engine designs.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to research what publications here in the US. I have not found a good source for 1930's American literature. I do have several French, German, and British articles on the T77 and T87 during the 1930's.

One thing I do know is that General Motors Art and Colour Section has subscriptions to trade magazines from all over the world, in all kinds of language. George Lawson and other GM designers had full access to this. I believe Lawson was likely a Tatra enthusiast. In the least, he was certainly a fan of European car design.

A Popular Science article I have from April 1947 talks about the T87 as a Czech wonder. In the article it says that two leading Detroit firms purchased T87's for possible study "some time ago". Could this be GM or Ford? Someone else? How long ago? Perhaps before the war? It's a shame the article is so vague.

Your comment about WWII returning vets is an interesting one. From what I know, most of the Tatra T87's that came into this country before the opening of the Soviet bloc in 1991, were brought over by returning servicemen. On a similar story, as you might know I own a Tatra T87. The first day I brought it home, my neighbor ran over and said, "What are you doing with a Tatra?" I said, "You know what a Tatra is?" He replied, "Of course! I spent a lot of damn time shooting at them during the Second World War!".

[Larry Clark]

To Hampton and Tuckerfan 1053- Your exchanges have provided some good reading about the history of the Tucker car, especially in regard to styling. George Lawson was a highly respected stylist. His possibly gaining greater recognition and notice does not take away from the subsequent very good work by others that caused the concept to evolve to the Tucker '48. I look forward to learning more about Lawson's work with Preston Tucker.

Larry